I have to say 4. Although the game that I think had the worst impact on the Fallout franchise is a non Fallout game, Skyrim. Skyrim's writing was half-assed and lazy. Which was a shame as there was so much to work with in Skyrim's setting. The quest were mostly radiant and fetch quest, perks were lazy and mostly just buffs and RPG elements were non-existent in that game. Yet the game is one of the top ten selling games of all time. Although the reason for that would mainly have to be due to Skyrim's modding community and not Bethesda's direction. You can see that Skyrim heavily influenced Bethesda design for Fallout 4.

Hard to say, it depends how you measure impact. Fallout 3 alienated the old fans but was a huge success. I thought Fallout 4 sucked but it way outsold 3 and when I read fan commentary usually seems to be the favourite. Fallout 76 was the worst release by far but isn't part of the main releases so not sure how much it will actually impact the franchise. I guess Fallout 76 because it's still the most recent and ongoing thorn in the series.

3. 4 was more of the same and 76 was a mismanaged disaster, but it all started with 3. Not because it was zany and whacky, 2 had that and was apparently controversial even then for it.

But the writing was sub-par, the sum was not more than its parts, the DLC didn't add anything to it, and the plot was just repulsive. Nothing fixed it. Not mods, not DLC, not time. We all know the tracts and essays we all churn out about 3.

I would say that Fallout 76 is the game that has the worse impact on Bethesda. But on the Franchise I say it's Fallout 4.

While Fallout 3 was the start of the Bethesdification of the franchise, at least they tried to make it a RPG. They tried to use material from previous games and lore, they tried to make skills and attributes matter, they tried to expand the lore, they tried to have ending slides, etc.

It's true that they failed on those things, but at least they tried.

Fallout 4, they just went with whatever they thought was cool. They really gave up on trying to make a RPG and went with a shooter instead, they gave up on lore, they gave up on skills, they gave up on attributes, they gave up on ending slides, they gave up on level cap (so you can always have the perfect character no matter how you play), they gave up on dialogue, etc.
The story was also bad, synths have no place in Fallout universe. The main villain had no real motivation or reason to do what they do (you can even ask the Institute director why are they doing bad things and the answer is "you wouldn't understand")...

Also the DLCs. Fallout 3 had actual expansion DLCs, it's true that Operation Anchorage was linear COD-like and Mothership Zeta just shit on lore, but The Pitt and Point Lookout were decent DLCs.

Fallout 4 DLCs were more like money grab than expansion DLCs. Apart from Far Harbor, the other DLCs are just stuff for build mode, stuff that shits on lore, and tacked-on stuff to give the player the choice of being evil (but not really, since the player can only be evil to his own settlements... It's ridiculous) and if the player doesn't want to be evil, it will just be a shoot everything DLC where it misses 90% of the DLC.

Even the official modding support for Fallout 4 sucks, with tons of things hardcoded, and you had to buy expensive software to be able to make animations and stuff... Voiced main character means that mods that add PC dialogue will have it be silent (making the mod feel out of place) or have to edit the game sound files in a way that will make it work (which isn't possible 90% of the time).

Also Fallout 4 was the game that brought the Creation Club into the singleplayer games. The obvious monetization, the thing about breaking your modded game with each update to the CC store, the forcing of players to login to Bethesda.net, the ads on the game screen, etc.

The most obvious answer would be Fallout 3, as it was the blueprint of the latter mutilations.

But i would say Van Buren\FoBOS. When the new leadership of Interplay cancelled Fallout 3, released that console exclusive «thing» and then sold the IP to the highest bidder, the franchise was doomed. Beth resurrected the brand, but Fallout soul was already dead. (at least as far as official sequels go. We still have mods, spiritual successors and «accidents» like New Vegas)

Out of the listed Fallout 4. Both Fallout 3 and 4 aren't good, but for different reasons- with Fallout 3 they tried to be, but failed in most aspects, while with Fallout 4 they gave up and just made a half-assed game.

There's also the legacy of both games- New Vegas in case of 3 and the settlement DLCs, Creation Club and 76 along with Atom Shop in case of 4.

Though, who knows what Interplay was going to do?
For all I know they propably would can Van Buren halfway through development and release another spin-off in vein of FOBOS.
So, yeah definitely FOBOS out of all games.

While 3 is really good in comparison to 4 and definitely 76, I'd say it's what did the most damage only because it started the decline. Sure it's better than the shit that came later, but that shit wouldn't exist without 3.

If we're not talking about the quality of the game, but the damage it did to the franchise, I think there's actually a cohesive argument to be made that the real answer is Tactics. I loved it, but taking a step back, look at it-- it's where the stewards of the franchise decided turn based combat and a strong social aspect simply weren't integral parts of a Fallout game, and a lot of the more regrettable deviations from the originals-- the action focus, the M.O. of the Brotherhood, the minimalization of choice and consequence, the turning up of the dial on the vault experiments from "subtle" to "comic book mad scientist," even the aesthetics-- describe a trajectory that runs straight through the Bethsoft era.

They've never said so outright, but I've long been convinced that Tactics was a big part of what made Todd and co. decide that the Fallout license would be a good fit for their style. Take one look at the muties and the power armor and tell me Bethsoft weren't taking heavy cues from the game when they were establishing their notions of the series.

If we're not talking about the quality of the game, but the damage it did to the franchise, I think there's actually a cohesive argument to be made that the real answer is Tactics. I loved it, but taking a step back, look at it-- it's where the stewards of the franchise decided turn based combat and a strong social aspect simply weren't integral parts of a Fallout game, and a lot of the more regrettable deviations from the originals-- the action focus, the M.O. of the Brotherhood, the minimalization of choice and consequence, the turning up of the dial on the vault experiments from "subtle" to "comic book mad scientist," even the aesthetics-- describe a trajectory that runs straight through the Bethsoft era.

They've never said so outright, but I've long been convinced that Tactics was a big part of what made Todd and co. decide that the Fallout license would be a good fit for their style. Take one look at the muties and the power armor and tell me Bethsoft weren't taking heavy cues from the game when they were establishing their notions of the series.

Click to expand...

Tactics also introduced the Brotherhood having airships didn’t it? Kinda felt that was a bit ridiculous when I saw it in videos of four only to find out that was a thing before Bethesda got the property.

I think Tactics is what got it cemented in Bethesda's mind that the Brotherhood was the coolest thing ever. Not that the Brotherhood is lame or something, but 3 onward with the exception of NV almost seem like they assume the player loves the Brotherhood and wants to help them, or has to help them in 3's case.

None of them had a worse impact on Fallout than Oblivion. Yeah, every design choice in the Bethesda Fallouts were birthed in Oblivion. The shallow RPG elements, the meaningless exploration, the terrible location placement, essential npcs that can't die, awful writing, the worst level scaling known to man, copy and pasted dungeons and caves and so many other tropes in the Bethesda Fallouts come from Oblivion. It's patient zero for the state of current Bethesda.

People like to say Oblivion and Fallout 3 still try to be RPGs but i see it as the start of both series starting to lose their RPG roots. Because they removed a lot from the previous games in their respective series but left enough to give the impression that Bethesda was trying to still make RPGs. But it was actually Bethesda removing stuff and seeing how much they could get away with. That's why each following installment just removed more and more.

I think Tactics is what got it cemented in Bethesda's mind that the Brotherhood was the coolest thing ever. Not that the Brotherhood is lame or something, but 3 onward with the exception of NV almost seem like they assume the player loves the Brotherhood and wants to help them, or has to help them in 3's case.

None of them had a worse impact on Fallout than Oblivion. Yeah, every design choice in the Bethesda Fallouts were birthed in Oblivion. The shallow RPG elements, the meaningless exploration, the terrible location placement, essential npcs that can't die, awful writing, the worst level scaling known to man, copy and pasted dungeons and caves and so many other tropes in the Bethesda Fallouts come from Oblivion. It's patient zero for the state of current Bethesda.

People like to say Oblivion and Fallout 3 still try to be RPGs but i see it as the start of both series starting to lose their RPG roots. Because they removed a lot from the previous games in their respective series but left enough to give the impressio'n that Bethesda was trying to still make RPGs. But it was actually Bethesda removing stuff and seeing how much they could get away with. That's why each following installment just removed more and more.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Fallout 1's Overseer can't die by normal means either. Although Bethesda definitely went overboard in that department.